Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Apr 2008 22:22 UTC
Windows As you surely know by now, the latest hype on the web is stories, news, or supposedly new quotes regarding the potential availability of Windows XP after June 30th, when Microsoft will cease selling the seven year old operating system. The latest development? Big PC companies like Dell and HP have found a backdoor to keep on selling XP after 30 June. And no, it doesn't involve Windows 2003.
Thread beginning with comment 311593
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So?
by Phloptical on Sat 26th Apr 2008 23:44 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

I'm not sure what's new about this. Every MS Office license that we purchase at my company is for 2007 Pro, yet we are installing 2003 Pro. It's perfectly legal and validated by Microsoft. In fact, I think the purchase of an XP license allowed for legal installs of Windows 2000.

Reply Score: 2

RE: So?
by Parry Hotter on Sun 27th Apr 2008 00:54 in reply to "So?"
Parry Hotter Member since:
2007-07-20

Correct, slap on a Vista Business sticker on the box and install XP Pro, 2k Pro or NT4 WS. No problem.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: So?
by kwag on Sun 27th Apr 2008 05:09 in reply to "RE: So?"
kwag Member since:
2006-08-31

"Correct, slap on a Vista Business sticker on the box and install XP Pro, 2k Pro or NT4 WS. No problem."

Or maybe ship with a new sticker?

Shipped with Windows XP Legacy [Version Here].
>> Windows Vista (Un)Capable <<


:D

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: So?
by Googol on Sun 27th Apr 2008 06:18 in reply to "RE: So?"
Googol Member since:
2006-11-24

The problem is HAVING an XP disc to start with. If a PC noobie walks into a store today and buys Vista, they don't have an XP CD like you. - And MS does not ordinarily ship XP with Vista, do they? That's the problem.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: So?
by sirhalos on Sun 27th Apr 2008 02:25 in reply to "So?"
sirhalos Member since:
2007-04-04

License is different you can not purchase a license for 2003 only current versions for Microsoft products but yes it is the license you would use for older products depending on the product. So Office 2007 is the correct licenese for 2003. Windows XP is different you can not purchase a license for it you should be purchasing OEM versions of Windows XP. You should be purchasing Windows 2003 or Windows 2008 license for Windows 2000 Server families whether for CAL's or Devices.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: So?
by Phloptical on Sun 27th Apr 2008 03:59 in reply to "RE: So?"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

Basically, the OS licensing we do is slightly convoluted...or at least it is to me. Maybe it's SOP to other folks. We purchase a machine from our system builder that has an XP OEM license on it. It's then ghosted with the copy of the Open License version of XP that we've purchased. According to MS it's legit, not that it's any big surprise. The license has been purchased, twice, almost.

Now with the advent of Vistard with MAC, and VLM (?), the world gets a whole lot more difficult.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: So?
by WorknMan on Sun 27th Apr 2008 20:22 in reply to "So?"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I'm not sure what's new about this. Every MS Office license that we purchase at my company is for 2007 Pro, yet we are installing 2003 Pro. It's perfectly legal and validated by Microsoft.


And even if it weren't, I don't think anybody's conscience is going to be pricked if they purchase a newer version of a product because the older version is no longer available and pirate the older version.
As far as businesses are concerned, from a legal standpoint, do you think MS is really going to drag some company into court for purchasing a Vista license and installing XP? That's called a PR nightmare.

As for Vista, I really don't see it as being all that bad. Though it certainly doesn't have enough improvements to justify upgrading on an older machine, if you're getting a brand new PC with decent specs, it should run just fine.
If the only reason you'd go through the trouble of downgrading to XP is to maintain compatability with some app that worked in XP and not in Vista, if it hasn't been ported to Vista yet, it's probably not going to be. So whether you do it now or later, you're eventually going to have to ween yourself off of that app, so might as well be now.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: So?
by Phloptical on Mon 28th Apr 2008 01:07 in reply to "RE: So?"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

Agreed, but we're not willing to beta-test Microsoft's half-shod crap because they say it's "Released to Manufacturing". Another thing, this little Service Pack 1 for Vista is nothing more than PR fodder to appease the IT managers whose policies dictate that no major OS upgrades will happen prior to a first service pack.

Get this, my company is just now ending the transition from Win2k to XP. Rushing into Vista isn't anywhere in the 5 year plan. We're still NT4 domain, for that matter. And, yes, that is changing soon....hopefully.

Reply Parent Score: 3